Scholarlink

Background <p>Metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) is currently regarded as the most established intervention for achieving durable weight loss and metabolic improvement in patients with obesity and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This review aims to compare the efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists and bariatric endoscopic interventions in adults with obesity or T2DM by assessing key clinical outcomes including change in body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), weight loss, and T2DM remission.</p> Methods <p>We searched Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and Embase from inception to July 3 2025 using a pre-defined search strategy. We enrolled full-text published manuscripts of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies using a predefined framework.</p> Results <p>Eight studies (7 retrospective cohorts and 1 randomized controlled trial) including 637 participants were analyzed. Follow-up ranged from 4 to 12 months. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference between GLP-1–based therapies and EBT in weight loss (MD 2.43; 95% CI − 2.89 to 7.75; I² = 96%), BMI change (MD 0.32; 95% CI − 0.77 to 1.42; I² = 97%), HbA1c reduction (MD 0.43; 95% CI − 0.44 to 1.31; I² = 88%), or T2DM remission (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.72–2.08; I² = 0%). Substantial heterogeneity was observed for weight loss and BMI outcomes. Safety profiles differed, with gastrointestinal adverse events predominating in GLP-1 therapies and device-related intolerance reported in EBT.</p> Conclusion <p>Within short-term follow-up, pooled analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between GLP-1–based pharmacotherapy and endoscopic bariatric interventions for weight loss or glycemic outcomes. However, high heterogeneity and predominance of retrospective data limit definitive comparative conclusions. Larger, well-designed randomized trials with longer follow-up are required to clarify relative efficacy and durability.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists vs. Bariatric Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis of Efficacy, Safety, and Metabolic Outcomes

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月9日

查看全文
  • Sariya Khan,
  • Saleha Shafi Khan,
  • Saaid Mounzer Mouazen,
  • Ziad Mumtaz Ramadan,
  • Shady Saud Khan,
  • Yara Osama Aldawood,
  • Manoel Galvao Neto

摘要

Background

Metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) is currently regarded as the most established intervention for achieving durable weight loss and metabolic improvement in patients with obesity and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This review aims to compare the efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists and bariatric endoscopic interventions in adults with obesity or T2DM by assessing key clinical outcomes including change in body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), weight loss, and T2DM remission.

Methods

We searched Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and Embase from inception to July 3 2025 using a pre-defined search strategy. We enrolled full-text published manuscripts of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies using a predefined framework.

Results

Eight studies (7 retrospective cohorts and 1 randomized controlled trial) including 637 participants were analyzed. Follow-up ranged from 4 to 12 months. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference between GLP-1–based therapies and EBT in weight loss (MD 2.43; 95% CI − 2.89 to 7.75; I² = 96%), BMI change (MD 0.32; 95% CI − 0.77 to 1.42; I² = 97%), HbA1c reduction (MD 0.43; 95% CI − 0.44 to 1.31; I² = 88%), or T2DM remission (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.72–2.08; I² = 0%). Substantial heterogeneity was observed for weight loss and BMI outcomes. Safety profiles differed, with gastrointestinal adverse events predominating in GLP-1 therapies and device-related intolerance reported in EBT.

Conclusion

Within short-term follow-up, pooled analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between GLP-1–based pharmacotherapy and endoscopic bariatric interventions for weight loss or glycemic outcomes. However, high heterogeneity and predominance of retrospective data limit definitive comparative conclusions. Larger, well-designed randomized trials with longer follow-up are required to clarify relative efficacy and durability.